4.2 Article

The relationship between membership of a university sports group and drinking behaviour among students at English Universities

Journal

ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 339-347

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2012.727508

Keywords

Alcohol consumption; sport membership; university students; alcohol related harm; team sports

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: The primary aim is to compare members of UK university sport groups with students not engaged in UK university sport in terms of alcohol consumption and risk for alcohol-related harm. A secondary aim is to compare alcohol consumption levels and alcohol-related problems in UK university athletes in different sports and at different competitive levels. Method: A cross-sectional survey using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and a demographic questionnaire was carried out with a purposive sample of 770 undergraduates (298 male, 471 female) from seven UK universities. Results: University sport members (n = 181) had a median AUDIT score of 11.5 (interquartile range (IQR) = 8) compared to students not engaged in university sport (n = 588) median AUDIT score of 8 (IQR = 11). The difference between medians was highly significant (p < 0.01). There was a significant difference between the median scores of members of team (n = 103, median = 13, IQR = 8) and individual sports (median = 8, IQR = 11), with team sports members scoring higher on the AUDIT (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences on median AUDIT scores between athletes competing at different levels. Conclusions: Levels of alcohol-related risk and harm are high in members of UK university sport groups. University sports members particularly team sports may be an 'at risk group' for alcohol-related problems and require targeted interventions. Further research is warranted comparing these student groups, and the relationship between sport type, participation level and alcohol consumption.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available